Current Roster Better Than Peyton's Early Roster [Merge]

[dpete]

NO PROMOTIONAL POSTING ON THE SITE2012-archives/march/did-the-1998-colts-have-more-talent-than-the-2012-colts.html

What do you think?

I think having Harrison outweighs the better defense. Not sure Peyton is in the discussion of all-time greats without Marvin.

[ColtJ82]

I can't disagree with the article (since FA acquisitions). Prior to FA acquisitions, there was no comparison and the old team was better. As it stands, the defense should be improved this year. If we pick up a starter quality corner, the defensive backfield will be the best it has been in years. It should improve simply by the scheme change.

The offense will be improved by default, but is obviously not as good as a Peyton Manning led offense. The major thing that the 2012-2013 team will not have is any level of continuity. I think this year will be a struggle, but we will be competitive the following year. Don't get me wrong, I think we will be good in some games this year, but will struggle to find the consistency. Losing Garcon hurts the offense. I am assuming that Arians want Donnie Avery for the Mike Wallace role in the offense. We will see what happens.

[WeSpy]

Marvin, whom all the analysts put up on a pedestal as this great genius weapon of Peyton's, is, in my opinion, largely miscalculated. Marvin was not full of thrills until Peyton showed up, and was only just beginning his third year the year Peyton was drafted. He was not a Pro Bowl veteran.

Not to take away from him, but as much as people would say that Peyton made Reggie great---the same can be said about Marvin.

[WeSpy]

On topic, I think the roster of '98 is better than the roster of 2012.

[dpete]

If you don't think Marvin is that great, what's your argument for the '98 roster?

[WeSpy]

If you don't think Marvin is that great, what's you're argument for the '98 roster?

Faulk is a big part of it. And I do think that Marvin is good, and certainly HOF worthy; I just don't agree that because he was here in '98 he made things easy for Peyton.

[oldunclemark]

http://www.coltsauth...2012-colts.html

What do you think?

I think having Harrison outweighs the better defense. Not sure Peyton is in the discussion of all-time greats without Marvin.

we still have to fill out the offense.

lets draft first

[ruksak]

On topic, I think the roster of '98 is better than the roster of 2012.

Agreed. Not so many questions on the O-line either. I think the author was stretching reality a bit.

[ColtJ82]

Marvin's career stats....significant improvement with Manning, but not terrible prior to.

Receiving Rushing Year Age Tm * No. G GS Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G YScm RRTD Fmb AV Career 190 188 1102 14580 13.2 128 80 5.8 76.7 10 28 0 15 2.8 0.1 0.1 14608 128 12 161 1996 24 IND PR/WR 88 16 15 64 836 13.1 8 41 4.0 52.3 3 15 0 15 5.0 0.9 0.2 851 8 1 8 1997 25 IND WR 88 16 15 73 866 11.9 6 44 4.6 54.1 2 -7 0 0 -3.5 -0.4 0.1 859 6 2 8 1998 26 IND WR 88 12 12 59 776 13.2 7 61 4.9 64.7 776 7 0 7 1999*+ 27 IND WR 88 16 16 115 1663 14.5 12 57 7.2 103.9 1 4 0 4 4.0 0.3 0.1 1667 12 2 20 2000* 28 IND WR 88 16 16 102 1413 13.9 14 78 6.4 88.3 1413 14 2 16 2001* 29 IND WR 88 16 16 109 1524 14.0 15 68 6.8 95.3 1 3 0 3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1527 15 0 15 2002*+ 30 IND WR 88 16 16 143 1722 12.0 11 69 8.9 107.6 2 10 0 8 5.0 0.6 0.1 1732 11 0 16 2003* 31 IND WR 88 15 15 94 1272 13.5 10 79 6.3 84.8 1 3 0 3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1275 10 2 15 2004* 32 IND WR 88 16 16 86 1113 12.9 15 59 5.4 69.6 1113 15 1 14 2005* 33 IND WR 88 15 15 82 1146 14.0 12 80 5.5 76.4 1146 12 0 15 2006*+ 34 IND WR 88 16 16 95 1366 14.4 12 68 5.9 85.4 1366 12 1 17 2007 35 IND wr 88 5 5 20 247 12.4 1 42 4.0 49.4 247 1 0 3 2008 36 IND WR 88 15 15 60 636 10.6 5 67 4.0 42.4 636 5 1 7

[ColtJ82]

Marvin's career stats....significant improvement with Manning, but not terrible prior to.

Receiving Rushing Year Age Tm * No. G GS Rec Yds Y/R TD Lng R/G Y/G Att Yds TD Lng Y/A Y/G A/G YScm RRTD Fmb AV Career 190 188 1102 14580 13.2 128 80 5.8 76.7 10 28 0 15 2.8 0.1 0.1 14608 128 12 161 1996 24 IND PR/WR 88 16 15 64 836 13.1 8 41 4.0 52.3 3 15 0 15 5.0 0.9 0.2 851 8 1 8 1997 25 IND WR 88 16 15 73 866 11.9 6 44 4.6 54.1 2 -7 0 0 -3.5 -0.4 0.1 859 6 2 8 1998 26 IND WR 88 12 12 59 776 13.2 7 61 4.9 64.7 776 7 0 7 1999*+ 27 IND WR 88 16 16 115 1663 14.5 12 57 7.2 103.9 1 4 0 4 4.0 0.3 0.1 1667 12 2 20 2000* 28 IND WR 88 16 16 102 1413 13.9 14 78 6.4 88.3 1413 14 2 16 2001* 29 IND WR 88 16 16 109 1524 14.0 15 68 6.8 95.3 1 3 0 3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1527 15 0 15 2002*+ 30 IND WR 88 16 16 143 1722 12.0 11 69 8.9 107.6 2 10 0 8 5.0 0.6 0.1 1732 11 0 16 2003* 31 IND WR 88 15 15 94 1272 13.5 10 79 6.3 84.8 1 3 0 3 3.0 0.2 0.1 1275 10 2 15 2004* 32 IND WR 88 16 16 86 1113 12.9 15 59 5.4 69.6 1113 15 1 14 2005* 33 IND WR 88 15 15 82 1146 14.0 12 80 5.5 76.4 1146 12 0 15 2006*+ 34 IND WR 88 16 16 95 1366 14.4 12 68 5.9 85.4 1366 12 1 17 2007 35 IND wr 88 5 5 20 247 12.4 1 42 4.0 49.4 247 1 0 3 2008 36 IND WR 88 15 15 60 636 10.6 5 67 4.0 42.4 636 5 1 7

Sorry, tried to delete. This is impossible to read.

[WeSpy]

It wasn't really until his second season with Peyton, and his fourth as a player in the league, that he began to play exceptionally well. 3 years, he never made it to 870 yards; 3 years, he never reached double digit TD's; 3 years, never made it to 75 catches.

I think he was a good receiver. I just don't think he made as huge of an impact on Peyton as people give him credit for. He is Hall of Fame worthy, absolutely. I just don't think he made Peyton great.

[WeSpy]

Sorry, tried to delete. This is impossible to read.

That's fine, don't worry. Stuff like this happens all the time with stats. Aggravating, isn't it?

[FireJimCaldwell]

Harrison wasn't all world until he and Manning put in the work to get on the same page.

[WeSpy]

Harrison wasn't all world until he and Manning put in the work to get on the same page.

Work is right. Work is what really makes players great.

[Jay305]

Bill Polian said it was not and I think he would know

[ColtJ82]

That's fine, don't worry. Stuff like this happens all the time with stats. Aggravating, isn't it?

Seriously aggravating....

[Keith L. Scott]

Peyton had a much better team than Andrew Luck will inherit.

Listening to all the Marvin talk earlier... when will he be eligible for the hall? I think he is a first ballot hall of fame candidate. But then again I don't get to vote on it.

[esmort]

Peyton had a much better team than Andrew Luck will inherit.

Listening to all the Marvin talk earlier... when will he be eligible for the hall? I think he is a first ballot hall of fame candidate. But then again I don't get to vote on it.

Unfortunately I don't think Marvin Harrison will be first ballot unless they break the current "logjam" of WRs waiting to get in before he is eligible.

[BrentMc11]

Sorry, tried to delete. This is impossible to read.

I put my eyes really close to it......I thought I saw Bob Sanders.....or was that Joe Addai....my eyes hurt. HA HA!

[BrentMc11]

Unfortunately I don't think Marvin Harrison will be first ballot unless they break the current "logjam" of WRs waiting to get in before he is eligible.

Correct....if Cris Carter did not get in.....there is a wait....just like Parcels with coaches.

[FightLikeSin]

Marshall Faulk.

Tarik Glenn.

Marvin Harrison.

If we are strictly talking offense, the 98' team clearly had better weapons. Personally, just with these 3 guys I think that outweighs the defensive chatter as well. New scheme, new coach, Freeney and Mathis are great but they'll be in different positions, so it's a little hard to judge how they'll perform.

[BrentMc11]

Marvin, whom all the analysts put up on a pedestal as this great genius weapon of Peyton's, is, in my opinion, largely miscalculated. Marvin was not full of thrills until Peyton showed up, and was only just beginning his third year the year Peyton was drafted. He was not a Pro Bowl veteran.

Not to take away from him, but as much as people would say that Peyton made Reggie great---the same can be said about Marvin.

Manning and the 'slant' made Marvin a star. It opened up everything for the Colts. I just looked at that 1997-99 article and I feel with 2 more FAs and the draft we are better now.

[Tark The Shark]

it is tough to say at this point who is better, I will see at the end of the season who has the better team.

[04DarkShadowGT]

http://www.coltsauth...2012-colts.html

What do you think?

I think having Harrison outweighs the better defense. Not sure Peyton is in the discussion of all-time greats without Marvin.

That may be the most ridiculous sentence I have read on this forum. Look Marvin is good, HOF for sure given his career. But he was just ok in 96 and 97 before Manning. (26th in rec yds 97 and 32nd in 96)

From 99 to 06 Harrisons numbers basically doubled from what they were his first two years.

He averaged about 850 yds and 7 touchdowns his first two years without Manning.

With Peyton from 98 - 08 he averaged 1170yds and 10.36 TDs. Now keep in mind that includes 98 when Harrison was below his 96/97 level of production AND 07 where he played 5 games and 08 when he was over the hill.

If you take out 07 where he was hurt and 08 where he was really not close to a #1WR he averaged 1332 yds and 12 TDs.

Manning has turned many average players into good ones and many good ones into great ones. The stats bare that out.

[chad72]

The TE position was definitely stronger, if not anything else in the 1998 roster with Dilger and Pollard. Being able to lean on 2 TE formations consistently helped the play action and stretch plays considerably. Having Faulk to bounce off ideas since Faulk was a brilliant mind, plus having a go to guy with remarkable talent in Harrison for Peyton to work with did help as well.

So, I would say, we may have better coaches and better defensive personnel now, but probably had better balance on the offensive personnel to be used as a foundation better for Peyton in 1998.

[Superman]

Interesting snippet at the end:

The Colts have no excuse. They should be competitive in 2013. If they are not, the media should be asking hard questions of the coaching staff and front office rather than casting blame at the feet of Bill Polian.

The cupboard is not bare in Indianapolis. There are no long-term cap problems that will force a slow laborious rebuild. 2012 will be rough, and everyone involved gets a pass. If the Colts aren't back to 9-7 and Wild Card contention in two years, however, fans will have every right to be upset and to question the competency of the new regime.

I agree with a lot of what Nate says, but I hope he's not going to turn into the new Kravitz/BBS and hyper-criticize everything new regime does, just because he doesn't like the way the old regime was treated by the media. I think Grigson and Pagano should be judged on their merits, not on the media's treatment of their predecessors.

[FireJimCaldwell]

This will be better compared when after week 1.

When you can compare

Marshall Faulk to the starting RB

Marvin Harrsion to Reggie Wayne

etc to etc.

98 will likely have the better offense starting with the quarterback position. 2012 will have a better defense, Punter, and Kicker.

[Superman]

This will be better compared when after week 1.

When you can compare

Marshall Faulk to the starting RB

Marvin Harrsion to Reggie Wayne

etc to etc.

98 will likely have the better offense starting with the quarterback position. 2012 will have a better defense, Punter, and Kicker.

1) The article is taking Faulk out of the picture because he was traded after '98, and wasn't part of the turnaround. I don't necessarily agree with that stipulation, but those are his parameters, given the fact that we only won 3 games in '98.

2) I don't think it's fair to compare 26 year old Marvin Harrison with 34 year old Reggie Wayne.

3) Nate concedes an advantage to the 98-99 team at the top (Faulk, Harrison, Glenn). But when you compare the rest of the roster, including the young players we have on defense now (when there was probably only one notable player on defense in 98-99, Mike Peterson), the argument can be made that the overall advantage swings to the 2011-12 team. Less dynamic talent on offense, but more balance overall.

Like you said, 98 will probably have better offensive support (due to Harrison and Faulk, not necessarily due to Glenn, as he wasn't really that good yet), but the current team is more balanced and has better talent on defense.

[Gavin]

1) The article is taking Faulk out of the picture because he was traded after '98, and wasn't part of the turnaround. I don't necessarily agree with that stipulation, but those are his parameters, given the fact that we only won 3 games in '98.

2) I don't think it's fair to compare 26 year old Marvin Harrison with 34 year old Reggie Wayne.

3) Nate concedes an advantage to the 98-99 team at the top (Faulk, Harrison, Glenn). But when you compare the rest of the roster, including the young players we have on defense now (when there was probably only one notable player on defense in 98-99, Mike Peterson), the argument can be made that the overall advantage swings to the 2011-12 team. Less dynamic talent on offense, but more balance overall.

Like you said, 98 will probably have better offensive support (due to Harrison and Faulk, not necessarily due to Glenn, as he wasn't really that good yet), but the current team is more balanced and has better talent on defense.

we have let some linebackers go in the past that left me scratching my head, Peterson, Session, June, of which the last two would work well in our new Hybrid especially Session and June either of which could have replaced Freeny and relieved cap pressure, I would have liked to see them stay and also wasnt a fan of Morris, I tend to think he was out of shape and wasnt near Elite at that position

[FireJimCaldwell]

1) The article is taking Faulk out of the picture because he was traded after '98, and wasn't part of the turnaround. I don't necessarily agree with that stipulation, but those are his parameters, given the fact that we only won 3 games in '98.

2) I don't think it's fair to compare 26 year old Marvin Harrison with 34 year old Reggie Wayne.

3) Nate concedes an advantage to the 98-99 team at the top (Faulk, Harrison, Glenn). But when you compare the rest of the roster, including the young players we have on defense now (when there was probably only one notable player on defense in 98-99, Mike Peterson), the argument can be made that the overall advantage swings to the 2011-12 team. Less dynamic talent on offense, but more balance overall.

Like you said, 98 will probably have better offensive support (due to Harrison and Faulk, not necessarily due to Glenn, as he wasn't really that good yet), but the current team is more balanced and has better talent on defense.

I didn't read the article, I'm not a fan of the author.

So I was using my own thought process of comparing the 1998 starting lineup to whatever the 2012 starting line up will be.

The roster is too incomplete to do so accurately in my opinion so i was just throwing out some thoughts.

26 year old Harrison vs. 34 year old Wayne. If you give it a P/C evaluation I'm not quite sure how it would turn out. I was just comparing WR1 to WR1.

It will make for a more interesting discussion once the roster is filed.

In year 2 the same thing will likely be done.

[BrentMc11]

we have let some linebackers go in the past that left me scratching my head, Peterson, Session, June, of which the last two would work well in our new Hybrid especially Session and June either of which could have replaced Freeny and relieved cap pressure, I would have liked to see them stay and also wasnt a fan of Morris, I tend to think he was out of shape and wasnt near Elite at that position

Thornton, Washington........

[Jay Kirk]

You could see Mathis at LB in this System,time will tell think we will get some suprises,i still think Hughes is made for this scheme

[Gavin]

Thornton, Washington........

Thornton, Washington

[FireJimCaldwell]

You could see Mathis at LB in this System,time will tell think we will get some suprises,i still think Hughes is made for this scheme

Could? There is no other place for him in a 3-4

[Superman]

we have let some linebackers go in the past that left me scratching my head, Peterson, Session, June, of which the last two would work well in our new Hybrid especially Session and June either of which could have replaced Freeny and relieved cap pressure, I would have liked to see them stay and also wasnt a fan of Morris, I tend to think he was out of shape and wasnt near Elite at that position

Peterson, Thornton and Washington were good linebackers, and I was disappointed that we let them go. But in every case, it was about the money. Washington never lived up to the contract he got, and no surprise, because it was the Redskins overpaying (again). Thornton we had to let go because of a cap complication, and Peterson just wanted more than the team was willing to pay. Sucks, but that's the way it went. The only linebacker Polian ever retained was Brackett, and I understand why, but think we messed up there. I will say, though, that Polian had a knack for picking good linebackers in the draft. Rob Morris was nothing special, but he was a tough player who impressed me with his willingness to play special teams after he got benched for Brackett (which was due to a contract dispute, by the way).

Clint Session got way overpaid by the Jaguars, and while I liked him, it was in our best interests to let him go. He didn't play well last year, had dealt with injuries the year before, and was not worth $30 million. He'd have been a decent inside linebacker in a 3-4, but not really an ideal fit. And he certainly wouldn't have been a potential replacement for Mathis or Freeney as outside linebackers. Cato June had good ball skills as a converted safety, but was exploited over and over again as a terrible tackler. He also followed the money, and even though it was considerably less than the other guys got, I didn't think he was worth it either. And he'd have been a dreadful fit at any linebacker position in a 3-4.

[Superman]

I didn't read the article, I'm not a fan of the author.

Not surprising, given your username and positions on a lot of Colts-related topics. Pretty much counter to Dunlevy.

So I was using my own thought process of comparing the 1998 starting lineup to whatever the 2012 starting line up will be.

The roster is too incomplete to do so accurately in my opinion so i was just throwing out some thoughts.

26 year old Harrison vs. 34 year old Wayne. If you give it a P/C evaluation I'm not quite sure how it would turn out. I was just comparing WR1 to WR1.

It will make for a more interesting discussion once the roster is filed.

In year 2 the same thing will likely be done.

Mostly agreed. It's a really premature debate, as are most of the media-contrived debates we see these days. But it does highlight what I've been saying for a while now: our roster is not as bad as people claim it to be, especially after we added a few players in free agency. The draft will improve it as well, not to mention the development of second and third year players. I'm really excited to see our 80 (or potentially 90-) man roster.

[FireJimCaldwell]

Not surprising, given your username and positions on a lot of Colts-related topics. Pretty much counter to Dunlevy.

Mostly agreed. It's a really premature debate, as are most of the media-contrived debates we see these days. But it does highlight what I've been saying for a while now: our roster is not as bad as people claim it to be, especially after we added a few players in free agency. The draft will improve it as well, not to mention the development of second and third year players. I'm really excited to see our 80 (or potentially 90-) man roster.

It's more of an ego thing. I'm not much on his ego, not a fan of bigblueshoe either.

The roster wasn't as bad as many said last year either. The worst coaching staff in the NFL combined with a mediocre on his best day QB is a recipe for disaster.

[Horse Shoe Heaven]

This roster is not better than when Petyon started. Just not so!

[Jay Kirk]

That is a matter of opinion

[BrentMc11]

Could? There is no other place for him in a 3-4

I still do not think Freeney fits it. Mathis does.....Hughes (last chance) does. I am interested in Freeman and Hickman....freeman can cover the new wave tight ends...camp will tell if fodder or fame....